"And finally: the rumored high megapixel DSLR (at least 46MP) could be announced during Q3. Unfortunately no specs here, except that it will have 6fps, and a newly designed sensor with very good low ISO performance. No hints about the name, but it will not have the “D” in the name. It's said to be something “very new” and specifically aimed at studio photography. Prototypes already undergoing tests."

6 fps on 46 MP - Would double digic 5 + be able to achieve that? Perhaps double digic 6 down the line...

Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.

In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.

Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.

In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.

Will there be a set of new f/0.6 - f/0.9 prime lenses to accompany the next gen m4/3 sensors, or will the laws of physics be altered to give thin DoF with a 2x crop sensor?

Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.

In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.

yeah apply the same technology jump to FF sensors and the equivalent tech FF will still leave the tiny weeny cute little baby sensors in their wake.comparing a Bugatti Veyron to a 60's VW Beetle is not really a valid comparision even though its the same motor company that makes the carssame applies to some future star trek sensor compared to todays sensors

A proper 50mm lens would be great and a 40+ megapixel cam a great update for my 5dII.

But really needed is an update to their ancient TS-E 45mm. Currently in the 40-60mm range there is no perfectly usable tilt-shift lens with superior IQ available from any company. The Schneider and Hartblei lenses are overpriced and the super-rotator design outdated. The older Arsat 55mm lacks resolution and proper coating as well as all the other older MF tilt-shift lenses. So there is really a huge gap between the great wide angle tilt-shift lenses from Canon and the tele ones from Canon, Hartblei and Schneider. Maybe Samyang will make one...

been seeing a lot of that from competing brands like Sony and Nikon, wait Nikon's using Sony's sensor right? So I guess it's just Sony??

Yes, as far as I know sensor technology is from Sony. Nikon is limited to provide electronics and software in addition to Sony's sensor. That must be fairly limiting on a development side (i.e. not to be able to design/control the entire setup), but Nikon is still able to provide something good in this situation, which is quite impressive.

For the Same sensor in Sony Cams and in Nikons... the Nikons seem to extract better DR and noise for the same analog sensor... Tells me Nikon's AD and amplification algo's are perhaps superior...

In some ways, Canon is like Intel... Nikon like AMD... AMD once beat Intel to the 1Ghz mark, caught it napping, because Intel was both arrogant and lazy... but then it came back with a Bang and AMD is still playing catch up after a decade... so there is precedence in the tech industry for catching up and reversing the lead. AMD is now slashing prices to make it's products interesting.... Nikon is already feeling the pressure and competatively pricing it's products trying to get back market share...

This year Nikon sensors have been good. Lets see what Canon brings to the table with the 0.18 uM process next year...

Excitedly waiting for the 70D. Hopefully it's very early 2013 and not till the end of March.

Also don't want the 70D and the 7Dmark ii to merge. If they merge, that means a higher pricepoint for those wanting to upgrade their 60D and the use CF cards, which I don't want (since I own SD cards).

Would want to see:Faster AF6fps burstnew sensor for improved low light and IQall-i codec for video mode with higher bit rate, actual 1080p (not the upscaling that current Canons do)better dynamic range in videoheadphone jackless rolling shutter, aliasing, moireand i know this isn't happening but they need to put 1080p at 60p. All their competitors have this now.

In some ways, Canon is like Intel... Nikon like AMD... AMD once beat Intel to the 1Ghz mark, caught it napping, because Intel was both arrogant and lazy... but then it came back with a Bang and AMD is still playing catch up after a decade...

Err, you are forgetting that Nikon used to be the 800 pound gorilla in the industry, not Canon.So, according to your analogy, Nikon is now coming back to raclaim their leading position.

Quote

Nikon is already feeling the pressure and competatively pricing it's products trying to get back market share...

Again, incorrect.

Recently, Canon has been (grossly?) overpricing their products - in what looks like a misguided attempt to position themselves as the Apple of the camera industry (or something like that).

To see the results of this overpricing strategy, though, just look into the last quarterly results from Canon and Nikon.

Last quarter, Canon's DSLR sales were down compared to 2011. Canon also lowered their outlook for the year ... for a second time this year.

In comparison, Nikon's DSLR sales were up compared to 2011. Nikon also revised their yearly projections ... upwards.

FYI, Canon projects sales of 8.8 million DSLR units in 2012 vs 7.1 million for Nikon.If the last quarter becomes a trend, it won't take too many quarters before Nikon passes Canon as the industry leader.

So, expect Canon's overpricing strategy to be abandoned sometime next year - after they have had two-three more quarters like the last one.

18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses. My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.

Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k. The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600. Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation. Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World. I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.

That would put it in relative aperture size and MSRP to the 200 f/2.0L IS USM ....

There exists a Vivitar 135 F/1.5 from times past, and creates interesting imagery, but it's huge and not very light weight, something that the 135L has that is nice is it's good size, weight and sharpness. If the bokeh is great, creamy and without much CA then that's better than simply going shallower IMO (it can "feel" shallower too). It would be nice to shoot faster for those definite low light shoots, but ISO performance is getting better and better, so what compromises do we mind or don't for going for a faster 135L? It'll be cool though

Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.

In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.

I'm pretty much lost for words after this statement...

Those who shoot full frame do so for a number of reasons. One of the biggest for me is the shallow DOF characteristics and closely following that is high ISO noise performance.

weekendshooter

18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses. My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.

Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k. The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600. Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation. Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World. I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.

Nikon's 28-300 costs around $1k, while its 18-200 is $850 (new prices), so the gap in price is closing. I predict that the performance gulf between these two lenses will also be nullified whenever the next 28-300 comes out, considering how much of both Canon and Nikon's attention is going to developing new full frame lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon developed a similar non-L lens considering the popularity of Nikon's 28-300.

I think the real discrepancy between full frame and crop is the prohibitive size and price of full-frame standard zooms. A third party 17-50 IS can be had for ~$600, and Canon's superb 17-55/2.8 IS is around $1k. The cheapest full-frame standard zoom with comparable performance is Tamron's $1300 24-70 VC, and I'm hesitant to spend that much on a third-party lens that has been shown to have build quality issues (Roger's report) and IQ inconsistencies (the-digital-picture's sample shots).

I'm considering the 24-120, but I've only been able to find mixed reviews; the consensus is that it's not as good as Canon's 24-105 while being more expensive. At $1300, it's the same price as Tamron's 24-70, which then makes me lust after Nikon's 24-70. Any such comparison makes me long for a reasonably priced standard zoom with fewer compromises than any currently available models. Ironically, I'd probably grab the upcoming 24-70/4 IS if I shot Canon considering the sharpness and light weight it promises. I had fun reading the chagrin on this forum the day it was announced while thinking that I'd love to have it here on the dark side